In good old McCarthy-style questioning, several state- and local firearm permit application-forms have — besides questioning potential alcohol- and drug-use and previous criminal convictions — included the question whether the applicant is, or has ever been, part of an organization “advocating”, or “approving” a violent overthrow of the United States government.

“Are you a member of any group with a purpose to control, seize or overthrow the government of the United States, any state or political subdivision by any means?”

The same question is being put to applicants from New Jersey, albeit in a more elaborate way (question 28):

“Are you presently, or have you ever been a member of any organization which advocates or approves the commission of acts of force and violence, either to overthrow the Government of the United States or of this State, or which seeks to deny others their rights under the Constitution of either the United States or the State of New Jersey? If yes, list name and address of organization(s).”

As you can see, New Jersey’s application form poses the question more distinctly, questioning not only possible membership of an organization which sets out to “control, seize or overthrow the government of the United States”, but also membership of any organization “ which advocates or approves the commission of acts of force and violence.” It goes without saying that answering this question affirmative will result in denial of the firearms permit, possibly even alerting DHS-bloodhounds to your affiliation.

The same question pops up in permit application-forms throughout New Jersey. As I pointed out yesterday, New Jersey has the strictest gun laws in the entire United States.

Although it’s standard practice to pose such questions in application-forms for government positions and jobs relating to law enforcement, putting forward these kinds of questions for gun permits seems somehow to undermine the reason why the Second Amendment was included in the US Constitution in the first place. After all, the Second Amendment was not intended for hunting-purposes or shooting empty cans from garden tables. The right to own a firearm is, among other things, intended to make sure the people arm themselves in case government turns tyrannical.

“Obama supporters and other lovers of the state recoil at the prospect of armed resistance to a tyrannical centralized federal government and refuse to accept that this is what the Second Amendment is all about.”

In his article, Nimmo quotes Fisher Ames, member of the Massachusetts convention that ratified the Constitution in 1788:

“The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people”.

“The Second Amendment was to protect the ability of the people to violently overthrow the government,” Richard Schrade wrote. “Let’s remember that this country was formed in a violent revolution. Let’s remember that at Lexington and Concord citizen fired on and killed government soldiers sent by the central government to confiscate their weapons and arms.”